CEDAW/C/SR.37 English Page 3 (Ms. El-Fetouh) ~hilippi~es that there were discriminatory laws which were not taken into account in practice. She asked, therefore, what was the respective validity of the laws and of the Convention. 8. Ms. JAYASINGHE said that, in Ambassador Moreno Salcedo's statement, it had been emphasized that, in the Philippines, there was discriminatory treatment in respect of women, since women were regarded as complementary to men and, consequently, they were not on a footing of equality with men. 9. Mrs. REBONG (Philippines) said that Ambassador MorelXl Salcedo had expressed his personal view, for that was not the official position of the Philippines. She regretted that that view should have offended the Committee. Although, in family law, there were prohibitions against the undertaking of certain activities by women, such as the practice of a profession and participation in business, those provisions were not implemented in practice. Although the father of a family could choose his family's place of residence, it was usually the wife who chose it. Women enjoyed many rights from which they were barred by the law. Si~e the laws were discriminatory, the Philippine authorities were studying amendments with a view to remedying that injustice. The commission entrusted with the revision of the Civil Code and the Penal Code was also uroertaking a study of the ameroments to those laws. The Philippines had become a party to the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages in 1965 aro to the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others in 1952. In 1954, the Philippines had acceded to the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children and to the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women of Yull Age. 10. All the observations made in the Committee would be transmitted to Ambassador Moreno Salcedo for his information. Ambassador Moreno Salcedo had made the statements to which various members of the Committee had referred as expressions of personal views. The opinions which he had expressed were not shared by all Philippine men, even though it must be admitted that some of them held similar views, and nothing could be done to prevent them holding them. Nevertheless, the most important thing was that women and men occupying high-ranking positions in the Government were engaged in a conunon effort to correct all the inequalities aro achieve the enhancement of the status of Philippine women. The provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Law were in the process of revision. It had been asked whether there were any women in the commission entrusted with the revision of those texts. That commission came under the Legal Centre of the University of the Philippines, which was now discharging the functions of the old Codes Commission established by the congress, it was chaired by a woman, and its membership was mixed and included three women judges, several magistrates and representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Services and Uevelopment drxi the Civic Assembly of Philippine Women, an organization which grouped together a number of the country's women's organizations. The proposed amendments would be ready by the next session of the National Assembly, to be held in June. She emphasized her great regret that the views expressed in a personal capacity by Ambassador Moreno Salcedo should have offerxied the Committee's experts. I . ..